students of jesus

Many people expect God to talk to them -- you are emphasizing collective wisdom from collected Christian writings. I think you are right that we should be aware of what God’s voice actually is. Here is http://triangulations.wordpress.com/2010/07/31/how-guidance-prayer-works/" rel="nofollow">an illustration of two different views.

Ray, as a wise man once said, "If we ask the wrong question we will always get the wrong answer." While I appreciate your intentions I believe you have asked the wrong question. Your train of thought seems to be much more akin to liberal thinking og Barth than the Bible.

Scripture is clear in authenicating itself. It is the word that is inspired. The question then becomes are we people who have ears to hear with (or eyes to see with). You rightly access that many professing Christians are dry... the reason is not that they approach God's word in too thoughtful a fashion... Quiet the contrary, there is abounding ignorance of God's word and little effort in understanding what it means. That is not what it means to me, but what it means. Once we understand what it means, we will have an emotional reaction to it. We will either love it or hate it. The dry, lifeless however a lack of emotional inspiriation but a lack of love for the Word of God and the God of the Word.

@ Brent
So, to you is Brent merely a confused Christian? How confused does he get before he slides into heresy and is no longer a Christian?

Sabio: welcome to Students of Jesus and thanks for your comments. You have an interesting (if challenging) website!

Brent: I wish I were smart enough to understand Barth, so any resemblance is purely coincidental. I think we agree that the scriptures are inspired. They remain inspired regardless of how we respond. However, I hear the same Holy Spirit who spoke then speaking now--using the scriptures *and* our hearts.

I'm not against understanding. The greatest commandment calls us to love God with our minds, so the proper application of study is an excellent response to the love of God--but not complete. I believe the challenge among westerners is that our Enlightenment mindset is antithetical to Kingdom of God. God wants to engage the whole person: body, soul, and spirit. Sadly we in the West have exalted the mind above the heart. We are satisfied with theological constructs instead of the reality of the loving God. It is a subtle idolatry, but idolatry nonetheless--and our intellect is our idol.

My frequent example are the Magi in Matthew's gospel. They are pagan astrologers moved to seek out the king of the Jews and pay respect. They inquire at Herod's court and are supplied the correct answer by the Jewish scribes. Yet not one "theologian" is moved to action. Not one bows before the King. Not one worships. To borrow a question from Jesus, "which of these two went home justified before God?"

Peace to you and your family!

Sabio:

Years ago Brent lived in my town. We've had an opportunity to get to know each other a bit. I assure you we can have a discussion without resorting to incendiary language such as "confused" or "heresy." We both respect each other as individuals, and as brothers in Christ. I assure you that I am *not* an orthodoxy cop, and I have no right to brand him or anyone else a heretic. Family members can have a discussion (even disagreements) and remain bonded together, as Brent and I are.

@ Ray:
Actually my question was to Brent because he seemed to be playing "Orthodoxy Cop". He did accuse your thoughts of being Barthian and not Biblical -- that is a clear speeding violation by those police.
Smile,
Sabio

Sorry for the confusion, and my bad, Sabio. I'll let Brent speak for himself. Actually, I haven't read much Barth, but what I have read I have really liked. Who knows? Maybe I am "Barthian" -- I'm just clueless as to what that means.

At the end of the day, I'm a bear of very little brain. Smiles to you as well.

Ray, this is Pat Myles. One dictionary definiton of "orthodoxy" is ~adhering to the accepted or traditional and established faith.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and guess you're not promoting anti-orthodoxy. I think what you are promoting is a life of seeking the will of God, with the expectation of Him speaking to you personally. Is this close to what you mean?

Thanks, Pat. Of course I'm not in favor of anti-orthodoxy and I am in favor of seeking his will. I am also trying to indicate that orthodoxy is not enough. Paul reminds us that among the teachers of his day that whenever Moses was read the veil remained. The letter kills and the Spirit gives life: I'm just trying to indicate that we need the dynamic of the Holy Spirit as well as orthodoxy.

This is very good, Ray. Thank you. I notice another wrinkle of this same topic. When leaders sit under the ministry of the word, they (I) too often listen so that they/I can USE it later. In other words, I don't receive, digest, shake, rattle, or hum as the words crash into my own heart space. Rather, it is easier to write it down so I can say it to others the next time I speak publically.

For Brent and/or Pat:

(1) "Orthodoxy" slowly became established as the varieties of Christianity got banned in the early centuries. Do you believe this was the work of God to purify his church or the natural work of humans and the natural sociological consequences of politics and successful philosophies?

(2) Today, there is huge variety of theological positions and a plethora of denominations and sects of Christianity. What is your test for the orthodoxy you wish to prevail among these?

For Sabio,

I think a good start would be with the Apostles Creed. With no "orthodoxy" at all then I could say, "Jesus never was born but is a concept", "Mary wasn't a virgin", etc.. These are arguments they had in the first century, that have dire consequences if ignored. Sabio, I'm assuming you are a Christian. If not then these arguments might not have any importants. As a believer, I've bet my life on the truth of His word. I'm not going to beat it into the head of an unbeliever, but I have a responsibility to teach it to this present generation.

@ Pat
I think it is pretty clear Mary wasn't a virgin. I have seen no "dire" consequences from not believing this.
I use to be a Christian, clicking on my name will take you to my site which makes would help you see my worldview. Good luck with your god-given responsibility to teach "this present generation." I actually stopped here to chat with Ray. From reading your writing, if you had a website, I would never stop in -- we don't have enough in common to facilitate fruitful dialogue in my opinion.

This is very good, Ray. Thank you. I notice another wrinkle of this same topic. When leaders sit under the ministry of the word, they (I) too often listen so that they/I can USE it later. In other words, I don't receive, digest, shake, rattle, or hum as the words crash into my own heart space. Rather, it is easier to write it down so I can say it to others the next time I speak publically.

For Sabio,

I think a good start would be with the Apostles Creed. With no "orthodoxy" at all then I could say, "Jesus never was born but is a concept", "Mary wasn't a virgin", etc.. These are arguments they had in the first century, that have dire consequences if ignored. Sabio, I'm assuming you are a Christian. If not then these arguments might not have any importants. As a believer, I've bet my life on the truth of His word. I'm not going to beat it into the head of an unbeliever, but I have a responsibility to teach it to this present generation.

Sabio: welcome to Students of Jesus and thanks for your comments. You have an interesting (if challenging) website!

Brent: I wish I were smart enough to understand Barth, so any resemblance is purely coincidental. I think we agree that the scriptures are inspired. They remain inspired regardless of how we respond. However, I hear the same Holy Spirit who spoke then speaking now--using the scriptures *and* our hearts.

I'm not against understanding. The greatest commandment calls us to love God with our minds, so the proper application of study is an excellent response to the love of God--but not complete. I believe the challenge among westerners is that our Enlightenment mindset is antithetical to Kingdom of God. God wants to engage the whole person: body, soul, and spirit. Sadly we in the West have exalted the mind above the heart. We are satisfied with theological constructs instead of the reality of the loving God. It is a subtle idolatry, but idolatry nonetheless--and our intellect is our idol.

My frequent example are the Magi in Matthew's gospel. They are pagan astrologers moved to seek out the king of the Jews and pay respect. They inquire at Herod's court and are supplied the correct answer by the Jewish scribes. Yet not one "theologian" is moved to action. Not one bows before the King. Not one worships. To borrow a question from Jesus, "which of these two went home justified before God?"

Peace to you and your family!

Sabio:

Years ago Brent lived in my town. We've had an opportunity to get to know each other a bit. I assure you we can have a discussion without resorting to incendiary language such as "confused" or "heresy." We both respect each other as individuals, and as brothers in Christ. I assure you that I am *not* an orthodoxy cop, and I have no right to brand him or anyone else a heretic. Family members can have a discussion (even disagreements) and remain bonded together, as Brent and I are.

Ray, this is Pat Myles. One dictionary definiton of "orthodoxy" is ~adhering to the accepted or traditional and established faith.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and guess you're not promoting anti-orthodoxy. I think what you are promoting is a life of seeking the will of God, with the expectation of Him speaking to you personally. Is this close to what you mean?